If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Mole (UK))   Adam Vinatieri: "well, Commissioner Goodell, if you want to talk about improving the NFL product re kicking, how about making field goals over 50yds worth FOUR points?"   (sportsmole.co.uk) divider line 89
    More: Interesting, Adam Vinatieri, Roger Goodell, NFL  
•       •       •

1234 clicks; posted to Sports » on 29 Jan 2014 at 8:51 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-29 07:17:38 PM  
Why reward teams for not advancing far enough to give themselves an easier field goal?
 
2014-01-29 07:20:41 PM  

FreakinB: Why reward teams for not advancing far enough to give themselves an easier field goal?


That's pretty much the killer argument.  You'd have crappy teams getting to the 41 and kneeling down just to make sure they get the distance.  And let's not even talk about how much of an advantage this gives Denver.
 
2014-01-29 07:29:44 PM  
Yeah, that is kinda dumb.  Could just make all FGs 4 points, so it's better than 1 TD.  Not the greatest idea, I'm sure, but then again, not my job to improve the NFL.
 
2014-01-29 07:40:05 PM  
Adam Vinatieri: "well, Commissioner Goodell, if you want to talk about improving the NFL product re kicking, how about making field goals over 50 60 yds worth FOUR points?"

FTFY Adam.

Seriously, you would have better luck selling THAT idea.
 
2014-01-29 08:21:31 PM  
Rewarding offensive ineptitude has not usually been the NFL prerogative, but hey, it's a new age of stupidity to put points on the board, so why not? Right, Rog?
 
2014-01-29 08:41:39 PM  

RedPhoenix122: improve the NFL.


Does the NFL really need improving?
 
2014-01-29 08:57:15 PM  
As a rabid NFL fan and Eagles season-ticket holder let me tell you there's nothing that gets 68,000 screaming lunatics to push it over the edge into true bedlam than the prospect of getting those offensive superstars off the field so a 5'9", 174 lb guy with a single-bar facemask can come out and rock a white-hot
coup d'arc gracieux
 
2014-01-29 08:58:59 PM  
Or we can have the player who scores the TD kick the extra point, but then again, that still wouldn't sit too well with kickers.
 
2014-01-29 08:59:22 PM  
You want the PAT to mean more, it's very simple.

Move the PAT attempt back enough yards to where kickers start missing it every so often. Done. 2-point conversion can still be from the 2, the PAT gets moved back to, like, the 10.
 
2014-01-29 09:07:55 PM  
Here. There's even a graph.

www.decisionsciencenews.com

Pick out about the amount of the time you'd like to see a PAT miss. Anything closer than the 10, it's a total gimme unless the snap is bad. Accuracy starts to become a factor around the 10, 15 yard line.
 
2014-01-29 09:12:39 PM  
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-29 09:13:32 PM  
How about a free point if you split the uprights on a kickoff?
 
2014-01-29 09:17:30 PM  

FreakinB: Why reward teams for not advancing far enough to give themselves an easier field goal?


I see it more as giving a bonus for teams that take a big risk with a long FG.  Right now a 50+ yarder is in no-man's land, too close for a punt to be worthwhile, too far for a FG to be expected to work, so it's four down territory.  With the rule change it would add a new bit of strategy, do you attempt a low-percentage 4th down conversion to see if you can score a TD, or take a low-percentage FG attempt?  I
 
2014-01-29 09:18:18 PM  
How about no kicking at all. No punts and no kick offs either. One team starts at the 20 and goes until they don't complete a 4th down or they get in the end zone. Basically back yard football.
 
2014-01-29 09:20:56 PM  
I like the way rugby does it - you kick the ball from the point on the field that crossed the goal line. As far back as you like. Crossing the goal in the center nets you an easy chip shot from close range. Catching a pass in the back corner of the end zone means you're looking at a long kick from a wide angle.
 
2014-01-29 09:21:41 PM  
Yeah, that won't possibly end up badly.

OK boys, we're down by 4 with three seconds left in the game.  We're too far to have a decent chance at a TD and too close for a 4 point FG.  Who wants to kick Richard Sherman in the nuts to get us moved back 15 yards?
 
2014-01-29 09:22:32 PM  
I could give a shiat about the NFL, but I'm sick of all this field goal talk, so I'm going to give this obvious answer away to you, the NFL, etc. for free if everyone will just shut up about it.

Put a very large one of these between the posts.

wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net

Problem solved. EVERYONE is happy.
 
2014-01-29 09:23:57 PM  

Gosling: You want the PAT to mean more, it's very simple.

Move the PAT attempt back enough yards to where kickers start missing it every so often. Done. 2-point conversion can still be from the 2, the PAT gets moved back to, like, the 10.


Make them spot the PAT well outside the hash marks.

FrostyBarleyPop: I like the way rugby does it - you kick the ball from the point on the field that crossed the goal line. As far back as you like. Crossing the goal in the center nets you an easy chip shot from close range. Catching a pass in the back corner of the end zone means you're looking at a long kick from a wide angle.


Yeah.  What he said.
 
2014-01-29 09:24:52 PM  

FrostyBarleyPop: I like the way rugby does it - you kick the ball from the point on the field that crossed the goal line. As far back as you like. Crossing the goal in the center nets you an easy chip shot from close range. Catching a pass in the back corner of the end zone means you're looking at a long kick from a wide angle.


They could adopt a version of the Canadian football 'rouge' where any time the ball is in play any offensive player can drop kick the ball through the goalposts for an automatic point.

So, let's say that the offense is on the 15, it's 4th and goal, the QB drops back, all of his receivers are covered, the defense is closing in fast and he doesn't have a way to run, he can just step back and try to drop kick the ball through the goalposts for a point.

The flipside would be that any missed attempts mean the ball is in play per fumble rules, and the defense can scoop it up and return it, or down it in the end zone for a touchback.
 
2014-01-29 09:25:11 PM  

Gosling: Here. There's even a graph.

[www.decisionsciencenews.com image 480x360]

Pick out about the amount of the time you'd like to see a PAT miss. Anything closer than the 10, it's a total gimme unless the snap is bad. Accuracy starts to become a factor around the 10, 15 yard line.


I don't know if I'm more concerned that the graph depicts a 60 and an 80 yard line, or that it implies a distance excluding the end zone, or that it depicts attempts of field goals beyond 65 yards and as great as about 85.  Dat graph is whack, yo.
 
2014-01-29 09:25:15 PM  

Shame Us: Rewarding offensive ineptitude has not usually been the NFL prerogative, but hey, it's a new age of stupidity to put points on the board, so why not? Right, Rog?


Exactly.  Why reward a team that cannot advance the ball any further than the 35 yard line.  If you want to change things up, field goals 50+ are 1 point, 30 - 40 is 2 points, and anything else is 3 points.  That way you're not rewarding a team just for having a great kicker.
 
2014-01-29 09:30:37 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: Yeah, that won't possibly end up badly.

OK boys, we're down by 4 with three seconds left in the game.  We're too far to have a decent chance at a TD and too close for a 4 point FG.  Who wants to kick Richard Sherman in the nuts to get us moved back 15 yards?


Now that's thinking outside the box.
 
2014-01-29 09:33:18 PM  
Miss short field goals, lose points. Make long field goals, get bonus points. Just like fantasy football. In fact, just move everything to fantasy scoring.
 
2014-01-29 09:33:42 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: Yeah, that won't possibly end up badly.

OK boys, we're down by 4 with three seconds left in the game.  We're too far to have a decent chance at a TD and too close for a 4 point FG.  Who wants to kick Richard Sherman in the nuts to get us moved back 15 yards?


I think what'd be funnier is a scenario where the offense starts running backwards to get in 4pt range and the D is chasing them and trying to stop them before they get to the 33 yard line.
 
2014-01-29 09:34:03 PM  

Anderson's Pooper: Yeah, that won't possibly end up badly.

OK boys, we're down by 4 with three seconds left in the game.  We're too far to have a decent chance at a TD and too close for a 4 point FG.  Who wants to kick Richard Sherman in the nuts to get us moved back 15 yards?


ten second runoff.  you lose.  but it feels like you won because you kicked Sherman in the nuts.
 
2014-01-29 09:36:10 PM  

p the boiler: How about no kicking at all. No punts and no kick offs either. One team starts at the 20 and goes until they don't complete a 4th down or they get in the end zone. Basically back yard football.


I'd be fine with this, except you can't call it "football" any more.
 
2014-01-29 09:38:44 PM  
The NFL is at the height of its popularity. It has long ago surpassed baseball as America's favorite sport. It makes billions of dollars, some of which isn't even taxed. So changing random things sounds like a great idea.

We don't even like the rule changes which are necessary to keep people from being severly brain damaged, why would we think this would be a good idea?
 
2014-01-29 09:44:01 PM  

Gosling: Here. There's even a graph.

[www.decisionsciencenews.com image 480x360]

Pick out about the amount of the time you'd like to see a PAT miss. Anything closer than the 10, it's a total gimme unless the snap is bad. Accuracy starts to become a factor around the 10, 15 yard line.


What team has been attempting 80+ yard field goals?
 
2014-01-29 09:50:41 PM  

ChrisDe: Gosling: Here. There's even a graph.

[www.decisionsciencenews.com image 480x360]

Pick out about the amount of the time you'd like to see a PAT miss. Anything closer than the 10, it's a total gimme unless the snap is bad. Accuracy starts to become a factor around the 10, 15 yard line.

What team has been attempting 80+ yard field goals?


IIRC, Seabass attempted one that was like 76 yards a few years back. lulzworthy
 
2014-01-29 09:50:51 PM  

ChrisDe: Gosling: Here. There's even a graph.

[www.decisionsciencenews.com image 480x360]

Pick out about the amount of the time you'd like to see a PAT miss. Anything closer than the 10, it's a total gimme unless the snap is bad. Accuracy starts to become a factor around the 10, 15 yard line.

What team has been attempting 80+ yard field goals?


Cleveland probably.
 
2014-01-29 09:54:00 PM  

Beerguy: Adam Vinatieri: "well, Commissioner Goodell, if you want to talk about improving the NFL product re kicking, how about making field goals over 60 yds worth FOUR TWO points?"


Seriously, you would have better luck selling THAT idea.

 
2014-01-29 09:57:30 PM  

ChrisDe: What team has been attempting 80+ yard field goals?


It's really 90+ when you consider it's from the yard line involved, not the distance of the kick.
 
2014-01-29 10:09:04 PM  

chuggernaught: Shame Us: Rewarding offensive ineptitude has not usually been the NFL prerogative, but hey, it's a new age of stupidity to put points on the board, so why not? Right, Rog?

Exactly.  Why reward a team that cannot advance the ball any further than the 35 yard line.  If you want to change things up, field goals 50+ are 1 point, 30 - 40 is 2 points, and anything else is 3 points.  That way you're not rewarding a team just for having a great kicker.


Why is it wrong to reward a team with a great kicker?  Teams are rewarded for having great QBs, receivers, LBs, RBs, and just about every other position.
 
2014-01-29 10:12:39 PM  

ChrisDe: Gosling: Here. There's even a graph.

[www.decisionsciencenews.com image 480x360]

Pick out about the amount of the time you'd like to see a PAT miss. Anything closer than the 10, it's a total gimme unless the snap is bad. Accuracy starts to become a factor around the 10, 15 yard line.

What team has been attempting 80+ yard field goals?


Could be those odd free kick situations.
 
2014-01-29 10:21:37 PM  
How about we keep things as is.
 
2014-01-29 10:22:38 PM  

ChrisDe: Gosling: Here. There's even a graph.

[www.decisionsciencenews.com image 480x360]

Pick out about the amount of the time you'd like to see a PAT miss. Anything closer than the 10, it's a total gimme unless the snap is bad. Accuracy starts to become a factor around the 10, 15 yard line.

What team has been attempting 80+ yard field goals?


As qorkfiend alluded to, there's a rule allowing teams to attempt an uncontested FG immediately after a fair catch.  It's not used very often except at the end of a half.  A couple of teams have tried super-long field goals under that circumstance.
 
2014-01-29 10:34:25 PM  
I have a much better idea: just leave shiat alone.
 
2014-01-29 10:38:32 PM  
This seems to have some documentation of long misses in recent NFL history:  http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2008/09/longest-missed-field-goals - 1994-2008.html

Although the longest miss on that is still "only" 76 yards,  There are 6 data points on the graph of 60+ (or a 77+ field goal), so something is still off.
 
2014-01-29 10:45:59 PM  
If you want to improve the NFL, get rid of Roger Goodell.
 
2014-01-29 10:48:23 PM  

Gosling: Here. There's even a graph.

[www.decisionsciencenews.com image 480x360]

Pick out about the amount of the time you'd like to see a PAT miss. Anything closer than the 10, it's a total gimme unless the snap is bad. Accuracy starts to become a factor around the 10, 15 yard line.


That's why I also advocate short field goals to be worth 2 points instead of 3. From outside the 40, we should be encouraging FG tries instead of punts. From inside the 10, we should be encouraging going for it instead of the FG.
 
2014-01-29 10:49:24 PM  

FrostyBarleyPop: I like the way rugby does it - you kick the ball from the point on the field that crossed the goal line. As far back as you like. Crossing the goal in the center nets you an easy chip shot from close range. Catching a pass in the back corner of the end zone means you're looking at a long kick from a wide angle.


Well if you scored on a corner it would probably be better to try for 2 rather than far enough back to overcome the angle.
 
2014-01-29 10:52:04 PM  

quo vadimus: I could give a shiat about the NFL, but I'm sick of all this field goal talk, so I'm going to give this obvious answer away to you, the NFL, etc. for free if everyone will just shut up about it.

Put a very large one of these between the posts.

[wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 630x473]

Problem solved. EVERYONE is happy.


HEY EVERYONE, LOOK AT ME PROCLAIMING HOW MUCH I DON'T CARE ABOUT SOMETHING! I'LL SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS IF I HAVE TO!

Other than that, your plan is crap.
 
2014-01-29 10:55:35 PM  

Summoner101: Or we can have the player who scores the TD kick the extra point, but then again, that still wouldn't sit too well with kickers.


I like this. Plus when you have a fumble ran in by a line man it would be even more awesome
 
2014-01-29 10:57:10 PM  

rugman11: ChrisDe: Gosling: Here. There's even a graph.

[www.decisionsciencenews.com image 480x360]

Pick out about the amount of the time you'd like to see a PAT miss. Anything closer than the 10, it's a total gimme unless the snap is bad. Accuracy starts to become a factor around the 10, 15 yard line.

What team has been attempting 80+ yard field goals?

As qorkfiend alluded to, there's a rule allowing teams to attempt an uncontested FG immediately after a fair catch.  It's not used very often except at the end of a half.  A couple of teams have tried super-long field goals under that circumstance.


I've been watching football my entire life and I've once seen this. Thanks for letting me know it exists
 
2014-01-29 11:00:20 PM  
How about giving the option of the punter being able to bring out a rugby ball for a drop kick?

But make it part of the rules that the rest of that drive you have to keep that ball (so if you got a first down on a fake drop kick you are stuck with a rugby ball till you score or turn in over )
 
2014-01-29 11:01:46 PM  

balki1867: This seems to have some documentation of long misses in recent NFL history:  http://quirkyresearch.blogspot.com/2008/09/longest-missed-field-goals - 1994-2008.html

Although the longest miss on that is still "only" 76 yards,  There are 6 data points on the graph of 60+ (or a 77+ field goal), so something is still off.


Four Fair Catch Kicks of 60+ years in the relevant time period makes up most of the points
 
2014-01-29 11:06:21 PM  

Oldiron_79: How about giving the option of the punter being able to bring out a rugby ball for a drop kick?

But make it part of the rules that the rest of that drive you have to keep that ball (so if you got a first down on a fake drop kick you are stuck with a rugby ball till you score or turn in over )


Or better yet you can bring a rugby (egg shaped) ball out for a drop kick(4pt attempt) but if its a miss you gotta use an egg instead of a regular pointy your next possession.
 
2014-01-29 11:16:17 PM  

p the boiler: How about no kicking at all. No punts and no kick offs either. One team starts at the 20 and goes until they don't complete a 4th down or they get in the end zone. Basically back yard football.


Then say goodbye to most of your miracle comebacks that require things like kick returns for touchdowns or onside kicks. A team is two scores up late, you might as well get up and go home because ain't no way the other side has a chance anymore.
 
2014-01-29 11:20:04 PM  

balki1867: Anderson's Pooper: Yeah, that won't possibly end up badly.

OK boys, we're down by 4 with three seconds left in the game.  We're too far to have a decent chance at a TD and too close for a 4 point FG.  Who wants to kick Richard Sherman in the nuts to get us moved back 15 yards?

I think what'd be funnier is a scenario where the offense starts running backwards to get in 4pt range and the D is chasing them and trying to stop them before they get to the 33 yard line.


fark. You just sold me on the whole idea. I thought it was stupid but that would be awesome!
 
2014-01-29 11:23:02 PM  
As I've said, between these rules changes that have been floated, the "kicker" is only going to be used for FG's:

* Replace kickoffs with 4th and 15 at the 30 yard line
* Get rid of the extra point

On top of those two, you could actually get rid of "field goals" as a place kick, and award 3 points for any punt that goes through the uprights, so, basically, all punts are "returnable FG Attempts".  They could then drop the kicker from the roster, and gain an extra roster spot for a position player.

The NFL seems to think punts are safer return wise, and then getting rid of the rest of those things the kicker does, you gain "jobs" for non-kickers (32 extra roster spots).
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report